Disagreeing with Canceling Holy Week

  • Thread starter Thread starter andre03051
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, but this isn’t a question about freedoms and rights. This is a question of trying to stop the spread. Since one doesn’t know that they even have COVID-19 for the first 14 days since they don’t show symptoms, it’s extremely dangerous to have crowds of people together.

Look what happened in Korea, one lady managed to infect 5000 or so people singlehandedly, precisely because she went to church gatherings and such.
 
Yes, a person can be forcibly committed under some circumstances, as a civil matter though. I do not think this could actually be done though since he is not a carrier. Another method would be to only allow bond under certain conditions, then when he violated those conditions, hold him in contempt of court.

A community response might be more efficient. Spread the names and photos of those who are violating this order, allowing stores to forbid them entry. It would be patchwork, but somewhat poetic allowing a community that refuses to help the rest of the community to be apart from them in all ways.
 
I see, so give up your rights then? You first.
To be clear, I’m not advocating people should go around purposely coughing on each other, and people should take this seriously, but governors and cops simply cannot just “create” laws out of thin air and do whatever they want, simply because of a virus. If an executive order backed by law is in effect (and the order must be allowable by the state’s constitution), one must follow it, but when you simply dismiss rights like they are irrelevant, you must be careful what you say.
 
Last edited:
JoeFreedom said:
but when you simply dismiss rights like they are irrelevant, you must be careful what you say.
Click to expand...
Nobody’s “dismissing” rights. The right to life is paramount.
JoeFreedom said:
I’m not advocating people should go around purposely coughing on each other,
Click to expand...
But you are advocating people going around when they don’t know if they are spreading the virus.
 
Here are some examples of the most vulnerable not wanting to stay in: Part of my job is managing volunteers at the public library. Before we closed I had to end volunteers coming in and I went to relieve a volunteer in his 70s from duty. He was sad and said I was kicking him out. Later that day I saw him just wandering the library aimlessly and we were packed. If we were open, he would come. He is Protestant so I’m not sure if his church is open. If it is I bet he would be there needlessly. I’ve been communicating with all of the volunteers since the library closed to the public. One of my volunteers is an Italian gentleman in his mid 80s. Very sweet man and a devout Catholic. I called him today and he said he was hoping I was telling him to come back to the library to work. I am quite sure that if his parish was conducting Mass he would be going. Papi needs to stay home but he would think it’s ok to be around large groups of people if it was available to him. Love the spirit of the older gents, but they need to be protected at all costs and may not fully understand the risks.
 
Therein is the rub. If a group of people do believe continuing to meet is necessary for their salvation, then the government is making a decision that the value of their faith is not as important as the safety of others. On one hand, one person’s rights end where another begins. On the other hand, trading what is passing for that which is eternal is a poor bargain. At least the Catholic Church has a system in place where those in authority can grant dispensations from the precepts of the Church. Independent pastors, especially those who with the charismatic personality can act recklessly.

I think the idea of closing the buildings they meet in, or move to, might be the best answer. Since a building can be condemned for being unsafe, including exceeding occupancy, this might be the quick fix.
 
I did not advocate going around when they don’t know if they are spreading the virus. You clearly didn’t read that I said people should not do that.

What I’m saying is that our governors and mayors and cops must still obey all laws and your rights.
 
Last edited:
I looked up existing laws, passed by the Pennsylvania Legislature and signed by the Governor, giving the Governor emergency powers for up to 90 days that allows the state to control movement during an emergency if needed. Nobody’s rights are being taken away.
I’m sure every state and municipality has similar laws.
 
Well, let me ask you a question:

Would you be willing to take responsibility for a mass outbreak of Corona because Holy Week services and Catholic Mass was not canceled? You know what I find? I find that the people complaining the loudest about there being no public Masses–would be first in line for the bishop’s head if they got the virus as a result of attending Mass. They would be first in line accusing the bishop of not taking this threat seriously and being negligent, allowing people to get infected. They would be first in line with a lawsuit.

From a practical perspective: when people sue you because you knew the potential danger of allowing people to gather for worship–yet still permitted it when you could have stopped it—will you pay the lawsuits? Think Catholics won’t sue? You are right–they won’t. Their lawyers will sue. Jerry Falwell Jr. may be looking at major lawsuits–for not closing Liberty University down and allowing people back. That led to a lot of infected college students.

But forget the practical and consider: if I were a bishop–and I went ahead, allowing people to continue with worship, despite a major virus and national crisis, knowing the potential danger of large groups of people gathering, and a large group of people was infected with the virus as a result of that–I would not be able to live with myself.

You think bishops like doing this? First of all, canceling public Mass affects income–in a major way. Let me tell you—all bishops love income. They never met an assessment they didn’t like. How do you think they run their chancery cleraucracies? So even if bishops aren’t holy, even if we think the worst about them, from a practical perspective, no bishop wants to do this–as it effects income! No priest, for the same reason. The fact that bishop are willing to take a big financial hit–suggests that this virus is serious and we need to take it seriously.

There will be plenty of time to attend Mass when this national crisis is over. In the mean time, this is necessary for the safety and well being of the people. Many parishes are offering virtual Mass. EWTN continues to broadcast the Mass. I realize it isn’t the same thing, but attending Mass virtually is better than nothing.

Remember–everything is all an over-reaction—until someone gets hurt. Then the lack of “over-reaction” becomes negligence and they are on the receiving end of a lawsuit.

In this case, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If we can prevent people from getting infected with the virus, we don’t have to worry about curing it, we will not have to worry about overwhelming hospitals or rationing health care.
 
Last edited:
Thank you @(name removed by moderator). Violating rights without validity and doing so randomly for the sake of safety is a bad idea. It must be done legally. Anything else is an over-reaction.
 
Last edited:
Then the law is dictating this and is perfectly fine.

I’m concerned about the people who want to throw people in jail and there are no laws or emergency orders (supported by law) passed.
 
When people suggest doing “whatever it takes, even violating your rights w/o law”, I will get riled up. So maybe don’t tell me what to do.
 
It is my opinion that it is possible to err either way, and that there are some that are erring too much on actions that will do little extra to slow the viral spread, and there are some erring on not want to do enough and accept personal sacrifice that is prudent.
 
JoeFreedom said:
When people suggest doing “whatever it takes, even violating your rights w/o law”, I will get riled up. So maybe don’t tell me what to do.
Click to expand...
I may have not read the whole thread but…where was that said?
 
JoeFreedom said:
When people suggest doing “whatever it takes, even violating your rights w/o law”, I will get riled up. So maybe don’t tell me what to do.
Click to expand...
I’m not American but because I noticed Americans citing constitutional rights so often, I got really into researching the Constitution and the vision of the founders. What I notice is that many modern people don’t realise the the Constitution is predicated on the common good. Individual rights have no authority if they subvert the general welfare of the society.

The Preamble…

We the people of the United States , in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
 
Last edited:
Emeraldlady said:
What I notice is that many modern people don’t realise the the Constitution is predicated on the common good. Individual rights have no authority if they subvert the general welfare of the society.
Click to expand...
❤️ Stay home. Stay well. Defend against passing a dangerous pathogen to neighbors and loved ones. Wash your hands. Guard your cough. Keep distance. (Cooperate. Not the time to be a rebel.)
 
Last edited:
You are VERY wrong. 001% of the Italian population have contracted the virus and of that number kill rate is 11%.

This is based on numbers you can find on the WHO site and simple math.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top